October 24, 2024  |  State Representative Anne Hughes

To the Editor:

Dear Outraged Ratepayers,

Thank you for reaching out about the spike in your electric bill. I find the electricity spikes put forth by Eversource and UI egregious, with hollow justification for such a sharp increase, despite the requirement that Eversource purchase power from the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant through 2027, passing along that pre-purchased cost to ratepayers (70% of your ‘public benefits’ charge).

I strongly support having the increase spread out over a longer period, so ratepayers don’t feel the massive shock all at once. Not only that, but this hit to our electric bills happened during the worst possible time with the persistent heat this summer and resulting increased usage. When usage goes up, exacerbated by climate change, so do our bills. This is one of the two times each year Eversource is allowed to request a rate adjustment, and with supply rates being down now, this could’ve been even worse.

A large portion of the spike in the public benefits charge comes from legislation dating back to 2017, SB 1501, which is known for being the Millstone power bill. This legislation predates my tenure, but puts into place a purchasing contract from the Millstone nuclear power plant that lasts until 2027.

While this contract does save jobs in Connecticut, it received significant pushback due to the unpredictable charges the Millstone Power Plant portion of this would impose on ratepayers, which could result in either credits or large spikes in costs for ratepayers due to the unpredictable energy market.

We did pass legislation last session that would create a multi-state agreement that would require multiple states to purchase from Millstone, helping spread the cost amongst ratepayers in other states that also benefit from the Millstone power, not just CT ratepayers. This went into effect on July 1st.

While a portion of this ‘Public Benefits’ charge (about 20%) is Eversource attempting to recoup some of the losses up front due to people who needed the moratorium to avoid their power being shut off during the pandemic, those consumers are still on the hook for the power used during that time. Eversource is recouping the electricity costs owed during the moratorium from those ratepayers over time.

Many people have asked for a special session to deal with this issue. I’m not opposed to such a special session, but a one-day session would not provide meaningful relief. That is why my colleagues and I are looking into more sweeping, long-term solutions and tighter regulations to protect ratepayers in this state.

It’s clear that we must significantly tighten regulations on these slightly regulated, for-profit utilities like Eversource and United Illuminating. These for-profit utilities have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to generate as much profit as possible, which leads to shifting costs around to increase their profits, often at the expense of the consumer.

This is why I strongly support strengthening regulations on utility companies to ensure consumers are protected. To accomplish this, strengthening the Public Utility Regulatory Authority, or PURA, by increasing their authority to reign in these for-profit utility companies is an important step the legislature must take, especially as these corporations have what amounts to a monopoly on power in this region.

Volatile, spiking electricity bills are not the only utility that strengthening PURA would address with price-gouging. I would support PURA using the increased power to keep other essential (public) utilities, such as water and internet providers, from price-gouging consumers as well.

In the short-term, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, and Energize CT are resources that can help consumers deal with these rate increases through assistance with energy costs, comparisons of potential third-party suppliers, and home energy audits. I serve on the LIHEAP working group and Human Services Committee, which meet year-round to approve expenditures and waivers, and am eager to continue working on updating the way energy assistance is distributed.

I’m fully invested in low-income energy effectiveness, so ratepayers aren’t bearing the cost a second time in their energy bill. As a taxpayer-funded program, this should not cost ratepayers twice by getting charged in their utility bill.

I heard from many of you and immediately signed onto a letter asking PURA to reconsider the rate adjustment, particularly the longer phase-in period. The chair of PURA wanted to have the increased costs phased in over several years instead of being a big hit all at once. Commissioner Gillett was overruled by the other two commissioners and they are recouping that cost from ratepayers over 10 months instead.

We should see that portion of our bill drop in 2025. The governor recently appointed a new commissioner to the authority, and I am optimistic that this change in leadership will be more consumer focused.

Our unaffordable energy costs are a top priority for me, and I will continue to work on this as we develop ideas to create a path forward that lessens the burden on consumers while still making meaningful clean energy advancements. Again, I appreciate you sharing your outrage with me.

Anne Hughes
State Representative, 135^th District